Agree completely. It's the same kid crap as cliques in High School. People want to fit in to a group, some very badly in times like these. And one way to do that is to pick a political party to identify with and proceed to mindlessly toe the party line, pick on, degrade, demonize, and attack other people who aren't in that same party/group. All the cool kids are doing it now I guess.

It's just not really about dealing with societal issues and coming up with solutions for a lot of people involved in politics anymore - they are more concerned with fitting into a group to gain an identity. I call them sheep.

Sheep love their internet stories.

What facts are you talking about? I haven't seen any facts in this whole thread. We were discussing opinion and making them illegal if they don't happen to agree with you. If you want to use vague, questionable opinions from people with political agendas for your 'facts' without applying any thought... go for it. I personally don't like being used by people to recite political dogma and slander but it's literally your right to be stupid like that. Have fun being used by people more intelligent than yourself. But I guess I'll add:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Too bad egocentrism and close-mindedness prevent you from returning the favor.

You are one fruity person Bestinshow... although 'fruity' sounds a little too nice to describe your actions, which I would call 'slimey'.

Stupidity can be forgiven, but mindlessly demonizing and slandering anyone who disagrees with you is simply immature and a sure sign of a weak mind. How old are you?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

You're a sheep. I get it now. Have fun with your thoughtless regurgitation of "facts" you obviously so deeply researched and not just regurgitated because you want to believe it. Baaaaaaaah. Follow your party line, hurry up or you might get left behind and have to hear dissenting opinions.

And by the way, educate yourself on what an op-ed piece is and stop being afraid of opinions.

Why did you post that?

Here's a more complete news story sans Obama comments for everyone:

Taken from:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-ramirez-eisenberg-2370202-chamberlain-jail


County to pay $4 million to settle jail-beating lawsuit

County officials have agreed to pay more than $4 million to settle a lawsuit brought by an undocumented Mexican immigrant who was beaten by inmates while in custody at the Orange County jail, the man's attorney said Monday.

The settlement appears to be the largest ever paid by Orange County for an in-custody incident involving county sheriffs, according to county officials and the man's lawyer.

Fernando Ramirez, then 21, was left brain-damaged by inmates in Module A at the Orange County Central Jail in June 2006. He was jailed after a 6-year-old girl told her mother a stranger touched her over her clothes on her private parts at El Salvador Park in Santa Ana. Ramirez was charged with child molestation but eventually pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of non-sexual battery, said his attorney, Mark Eisenberg.

But Eisenberg said the jail's classification of his client contributed to the attack because other prisoners became aware of the sexual assault allegation. Deputies in charge of monitoring the jail that night were elsewhere in the jail when the attack occurred, Eisenberg said.

The ensuing beating left Ramirez with the intellect of a 4-year-old child. He is unable to walk unassisted and will need help for the rest of his life, said Eisenberg.

County officials declined comment on the settlement. However, a spokesman did confirm that the next highest pay out for an in-custody incident was a $650,000 settlement paid in 2002 to the family of a man who died in 1998 after scuffling with deputies in the jail.

County supervisors gave their lawyers authorization to settle the lawsuit earlier this month in a closed session.

Eisenberg said a final settlement was approved Apr. 17 and described the amount as $3.75 million for Ramirez's family along with nearly $900,000 to cover all outstanding medical liens for medical care rendered while in custody.

The attack occurred months before another highly publicized inmate jail beating which resulted in the death of John Derek Chamberlain, who had been jailed on suspicion of possessing child pornography.

After The Orange County Register published an investigation of deputies' role in that case, a criminal grand jury probed the Chamberlain beating.

The grand jury described a culture among deputies of lax oversight of prisoners as well as a culture of cover-up regarding deputy actions. Two assistant sheriffs and seven deputies resigned during the fallout from the grand jury investigation.

The disclosures from the Chamberlain grand jury, as well as the 2007 federal indictment of former Sheriff Mike Carona on unrelated corruption charges, presented challenges for the county during a jury trial.

"The county was vigorously fighting any effort by Ramirez and his counsel to have anything introduced from Chamberlain," Eisenberg said, adding that he reviewed such motions during trial preparations.

"I think the grand jury report was influential," he said. "I also think the criminal conviction of Sheriff Carona, albeit on the limited count of witness tampering, was also influential."

"It was a chapter in the county's history that needed to be closed. And these two factors, Chamberlain and Carona, played a role," Eisenberg said. "It certainly influenced the powers that be to conclude that this case was one that should be settled."

Eisenberg said his side also had challenges facing a conservative jury pool in Orange County, because of Ramirez's immigration status and the nature of his arrest.

"Both sides had problems," he said.

For example, Chamberlain's family accepted a settlement of $600,000 in large part because of the potential impact on jurors due to the sexual nature of the allegations against him.

Eisenberg called the settlement "fair" noting that it will take care of Ramirez's medical needs for the rest of his life. He credited county officials for "stepping up and doing the fair and responsible thing."

While County Supervisor John Moorlach would not comment on the details of the Ramirez settlement, he did say that Sheriff Sandra Hutchens has turned around a lax culture within the jails.

His chief of staff, Mario Mainero, recently took a tour of the jails and said the infrastructure, staff and inmates showed a very different attitude since his first jail tour in the wake of the Chamberlain death.

Moorlach also said several changes – such as cameras, more visible and mobile guards and a full shuffling of top managers – has helped to begin changing the culture that contributed to the Chamberlain and Ramirez beatings.

"We're seeing management get involved," Moorlach said. "And what I'm getting as feedback is that we're seeing dramatic change."

I would guess the award wasn't given based on the result of an actual lawsuit by a judge, but to avoid an actual lawsuit altogether outside of court. Civil lawsuits aren't based on hard law so much as criminal charges are. Would just have to convince a judge that the lawsuit isn't completely frivolous and have a family member of the now mentally debilitated immigrant to testify to the damages it has caused the family. And as it is basically illegal for our prison systems to allow prisoners to be beaten/killed by other inmates... I doubt it would have been difficult for lawyers to find a judge that would accept the lawsuit.

What's sort of ironic is the guy was likely beat up by inmates that felt the exact way you do about illegal immigrants and child molesters (this is what happens to child molesters in jail)...

And I'm not saying this is justice to award him a large settlement - but I can guarantee that what happened has more to do with inmates feeling the exact same way you do willing2 rather than it being Obama's fault. I just don't get that connection nor the complicated mind-leaps one would have to go through to lay blame on any prez and not mention the other branches of the federal government (congress, senate, supreme court, etc), the state government of California (and their specific immigration laws), and the board that runs the county jail. And not too mention the voters that brought the current immigration laws into effect (which pre-date Obama)...

Man I don't think Andrew is a good comparison to Katrina (I lived there too but I evacuated - but the reason I live in Orlando now). By comparison, the FL state and city emergency response was rapid. No disaster is going to be rainbows and kittens no matter how well you are prepared and it takes time for any government to reassert control over chaos and destruction that wide-spread. There's a ratio of hundreds to thousands of civilians to any one N.G. member. But knowing that is why I evacuated. At least the police remained on duty and the FL N.G. units were activated and working before landfall even occurred (and even during the storm). Federal assistance was even requested immediately following the storm unlike with Katrina.

By the way, I don't think anyone wants the U.S. Army (even under the N.G. label) engaging with and destroying Americans during a natural disaster - looters or not - except in cases of self-defense (idiots were shooting at N.G. during Andrew as well as Katrina which made their job even more difficult). And those were the 'rules of engagement' they were given and had to follow. Using force against looters and arresting people is primarily the job of law enforcement and should remain so for civil reasons. So I don't blame the N.G. for the looting.

Completely agree with your last paragraph though.

It's not that hard to understand.

We have two choices, a) Yes government, please use my tax money to be prepared to protect my life, restore the order and services I need to live, and help me recover from a disaster. Or, b) Don't train anyone to do anything if it requires government forces to be deployed above the state government level.

We've been operating under choice b. But N.O. showed how inadequately local city and state government may be in the face of a large disaster.

Most people aren't even aware that LA's state government declined federal N.G. assistance for fear of losing operational control over to the federal government. N.O. police were not functional, state N.G. wasn't called up prior to landfall, city government was literally destroyed in a matter of minutes, etc... It was only after legal maneuvering that the federal government was able to send in emergency relief (too late). And the people effected by that event either live with the state governor's decision now minus a lot of their property, or they died. And a LOT died. The rest of us just seem to want to say something like 'Bush is evil' as an explanation.

The issue does need to be addressed at some point beyond claiming government conspiracies at any attempt to do so. There are bigger disasters than hurricanes. And one will eventually hit that effects more of the country. Do we or do we not want our government to be able to act or does someone have a better (yet realistic) solution that doesn't involve federal forces (while keeping in mind how Katrina turned out)?

Ok, now that we've played the usual 'define the word' game... Can you not see that enforcing one side of a political polarization of views, abandoning traditional ideologies (democratic constitutional freedoms in our case) with the power of the state (backed up by the legal system and police), to enforce a poorly-defined emotional appeal that differing opinions should be silenced isn't part of the definition of fascism?

You might not get it even with definitions of fascism in front of you - but a lot of other people do. We don't want or need YOUR opinion forced on us or anyone. Keep it as an opinion and not a law. To do so in that manner is fascism.

Anyway, for those willing to use the state to silence those that don't agree: Shut up.

Hope everyone has a good day.

You could call our government fascist when it controls information/news/opinion. I agree. Why do so many of you want that?

The basis of the the right to free speech in the USA was put in place to ensure that people won't infringe on other peoples different views through the power of the state. But I guess some people don't see other people's views as important and are even scared by them enough to want to silence them. Why?

Fascism - A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.

I'd even still like you to respond to how enforcing your views through the power of the state isn't hypocritical instead of still dodging the direct question.

There may be a lot of politically ignorant Americans in your opinion. To me, you are one of them [not an attack, just a truthful personal opinion like yours]. I still can't believe there are so many people that have fascist views on here. What happened to the value of liberty and the acceptance of other views and opinions other than our own?

Why can't people figure out the difference between news and op-ed opinions? These aren't new concepts. News papers have been doing this for longer than TV has existed.

Then again, calls to quite the thought of the 'opposition' by state control/law isn't a new concept either. Usually ends in violence as some people will fight for basic human rights... but it's not a new concept. Before opening that can of worms though, better ask yourself if you are in a majority on all your views, thoughts, actions. Because you'll be shooting yourself in the foot just as much as everyone else if you have any individuality to you.

I'd still like you to address the hypocrisy of your statements and not dodge with more hypocritical comments about how you want to label certain networks as 'offenders' that don't agree with your opinion. What is your plan for the 'offenders'? 'Take them down' is rather vague.

That is free-speech. I can tell anyone to shut-up as well: shut up. It's maybe a pointless thing to say in reality, but not illegal.

What free-speech is not: regulating what people can say by the state or government because others have a difference of opinion. And if I had to pick between possibly being exposed to the opinions of O'Rielly or having what I can think/say being regulated across the board by the state... it doesn't take much independent thought to know what is a better option for me and for people that I know.

Deal with opinions (either by being open-minded and listening or by being opinionated in turn), or just ignore them - it's your personal decision, not the government's. Let's keep it that way?

Even if O'Reilly isn't your cup of tea, I can tell you what free-speech is absolutely not: passing a law to regulate what other people can say just because you might disagree with a possible different opinion. Sounds a lot like direct state-control of the media... But that's probably because that's exactly what some people, if given a majority, would impose upon other people. This thread is a good example of that.

Bestinshow - Why all the hypocrisy? Think you are above the influence of mass media yet you are calling on the state/government (FTC) to back up your personal views of how mass-media (op-ed) should exist to YOUR liking? Closed-mindedness and hypocrisy at its finest. Please don't tell me you sincerely think that passing laws and regulations that infringe upon the free-speech of your fellow citizens is "good"? Granted I didn't read every single response to this point - maybe I missed the joke.



Too bad more people won't take even little steps towards independent thought. I agree totally. Amazing that you came up with a solution that didn't involve infringing upon Constitutional rights.